security_task_prctl: why -ENOSYS

[Serge E. Hallyn]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 02:01:07PM -0500, William Roberts wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > How about security_task_prctl_allowed()?  (Mirroring security_uring_*)
> >
> > Renaming the existing hook security_task_prctl_handle() also wouldn't
> > be too bad, but that's probably more churn than it's worth.
> >
> 
> Yeah if something else is already done, I'll just copy their
> convention. I went with suffix _check for now.
> 
> Another possible issue that I think other upstream communities may
> have with adding an additional hook, is that there will be two hooks
> in the prctl syscall path,
> I am not sure if that's a show stopper?

It's not a hot path, so I wouldn't think so.